You don't have to vote for six!

[beyondthis]

Just a reminder to voters, that you don't have to vote for six councillors - you can vote anywhere from 1-6. I've researched the candidates and have decided that there are only TWO candidates that I would like to vote for. I really believe we need to see some fresh new faces on council. Don't feel obligated to fill up all six spots...only vote for the one(s) you feel will best serve our community...please don't fill in a box just because the name is "familiar"!!

[canadman]

Thanks for posting this. I was just looking through the candidates and thought the same thing today. Vote for WHO YOU WANT, don't just fill in the balance of the ballot because you think you have to vote for 6. When that happens, voters tend to vote for the one or two they want and then fill out the balance of the ballot based on name recognition. You could be defeating the purpose for yourself, voting in people who's views you agree with, only to support others who's views you may not agree with but are familiar by name to you.

I too only have three candidates I can honestly support and will ONLY be voting for them.

[RosieJoe]

Thank you for posting this. I too am only voting for 1 person this election on council. Young and focused. I think she will bring a fresh perspective to council. She really came out of her shell on the 16th with a no holds bar attitude. Very Impressive.

[Bestside]

The above descriptions of plumping voting strategy is faulty and narrow...
If you are a candidate yourself, like Rosie may be, that would be good strategy.

However, selecting candidates is much more involved than that. If there is one or more candidates that you do NOT want elected, then vote for 6 others. Taking a risk on an unknown can be much better than not voting for the maximum six opposition to the candidate(s) who you know would be a terrible fit on council.

A good example is our first DWK election in 2007 were 2 open strategies were in play and one sneaky strategy.

1. The Vote-for-Four slate, requested supporters to practice plumping and only vote for the four of them, and exclude all others to give them the best chance for a majority on council. 4 of 7 required to have the mandate to amalgamate with Kelowna.

2. The people who were against the Vote-for-Four slate asked voters to vote for 6 others, anyone but the four on the slate, to give the greatest possible chance of electing people who would be satisfied with honouring the majority vote for incorporation as our own municipality.

3. Then there was Findlater who instructed his supporters to do plumping by only voting for him. In that way Findlater accomplished three routes for the best chances to win.
a. In respect to #1 above: Findlater had declared earlier that he was for amalgamation. Findlater was tight with ex mayor Gray, current Mayor Shepherd and Kelowna city manager Ron Mattiussi, all who had served with him on the governance committee. Then after the governance vote he flipped to the winner's side, incorporation. Therefore, by declaring plumping for himself, he was also seen to be supporting the plumping for #1 above, the Vote-for-Four slate, and decreasing the possibility of the people in #2 above preventing election of the four. People for #1 then could also support Findlater for election knowing he would flip in a heart beat to amalgamation if three or four of the Vote-for-Four candidates were elected.
b. In respect to #2 above: The people in #2 would still see Findlater as being for incorporation, and still vote for him.
c. Findlaters close circle of supporters would vote only for him.

With that strategy of appeal to all voters, Findlater topped the polls for councilor in 2007.

[RosieJoe]

Sorry bestside, I wouldn't have the guts to run. People need to vote for who ever they want. There are a few good choices, but I know who I want to represent me. Thanks for thinking I am running though. Clearly I sound like political suit!

[westbanker]

see what happens when you vote less than 6